> YCombinator and HN would run a "Slit your mommas throat as a service" if they though there were hockey stick growth profit.
While saying they're making the world a better place in the process. At least Wall Street sharks tend to be honest about their motivations and lack of giving a shit about you.
You're being a pedant because it's a common saying to say "if they did it, no they didn't". Everyone knows what is meant by saying it. Going through all of those words to explain what everyone already knows is what it means to be a pedant.
Yea and that’s effectively “did not do it” when it comes to anything involving consequences.
It was obvious what the rhetorical point `nekusar was making. I’ll give you the pedantic point of being technically correct when looking at it from a gods eye view.
But for the purposes of doing something in protest like destroying flock cameras, the person doesn't want to be known as not doing it. They want people to know they did it, and why they did it. They want the cred. So saying they didn't do it is not helping the cause. Accepting they did it while returning not guilty is the desired outcome. Having juries return not guilty verdicts when someone very clearly did something is a good step in having stupid laws overturned. Even if they don't get removed, it shows police and prosecutors that that juries are not going to convict for this type of case. You'd have to be a Jeanine Pirro type to be willing to bring cases that are known losers. Rational prosecutors will not.
I think as a citizen and a 2x juror, that it is our responsibility first to determine if a law should be a law for all. Secondly, if the law passes scrutiny, ONLY then should we determine guilt or innocence.
I am highly disincentivised in seeing victimless crimes as crimes. Like drug usage and all that. Or destruction of horrific security appratus like Flock.
Simply put, the laws wrong. And that means 'Not Guilty' for anyone I would have to judge, even if they admitted it in open court.
(I'm also aware that jury nullification has also been used to find black lynching perpetrators to be not guilty of the same nullification. I said that I judge a law if it should be. Murder is pretty clearly not victimless, but extenuating circumstances like self defense are a thing. Lynching is terrible, and so is freeing lynching perpe-traitors.)
You can agree that the person did the act yet still find them not guilty. The fact is still the fact. As someone else stated, not guilty does not mean they did not do it. It just means they do not want to say they are guilty. There's only two options. If if you do not choose "guilty" the only option remaining is "not guilty".
Or different sites require laptops in separate boxes, but this site is fine. Or shoes on, or shoes off. Porno scanners. Basically the TSA was a big corporate donation to security appratus, and a huge worthless make-work operation.
And if they're really worried about terrorism, it's still beyond stupid. There's still long lines BEFORE security that they could target.
But you know, that person with a small pocketknife is a "REAL DANGER" so the government thieves those evil weapons or how dare they bring 2.5 ounces!
Quite a few of the usual suspects are involved in Crypto, NFT’s, “Metaverse”, and now AI. You’d think people would figure it out, but there’s the old Upton Sinclair quote I guess.
the metaverse went from being about owning your identity and digital possessions to mostly being about buying jpegs. once collectibles and nft speculation became the headline, it was hard to explain why any of the underlying technology mattered. after that, most people just associated the whole thing with speculation rather than the original vision.
which is a shame, I still feel like VR is full of untapped potential
Yeah - they not just VRChat but many other VR projects are alive and very active, doing verz innovative and almost marvelous things most people don't know anything about.
It might not be a mainstream thing any time soon or ever, but that is not necessary as long as the people invovled woth VR are having fun. :)
How much you spend on something does have an indication on what the utility is for you. Though people spent on all the other hype things so at the time those things also had some utility for that user.
> At the very minimum, the company acknowledges the union and negotiates with the union for working conditions for union members.
By federal law, if a company has a union, the union must represent ALL non-management workers, even those who do not pay dues.
This is obviously fucked up. But this has been union law at the NLRB for a long time.
The fair response: a union should only legally be responsible for representing its members. But these sorts of terrible union laws are the consequence of attempting to destroy them since their creation.
And for those of you who think unions are terrible (capitalists and ilk), what we had before was 'firebomb the business or the bosses house', and basically waging war between capitalists and labor. Unions and legal representation WAS the compromise.
Labor history has always been a bloody and murderous affair. Go look up the history of the pinkertons.
>By federal law, if a company has a union, the union must represent ALL non-management workers, even those who do not pay dues.
This is not true. There can be non-union job classes even if the employer has some unionized employees. Even in different geographic areas you can have one location have class X union and another non-union (eg Starbucks).
What you cannot do, is have a unionized location with union Software Engineer I and non-union Software Engineer I. Sometimes employers try to skirt this and have non-union jobs that are too close to union jobs, and then it's lawsuit time.
The problem there is that if it doesn't represent everyone, the company will simply give better conditions to nonmembers to pressure members to quit their membership. You do still have a way to change the union even if it's involuntarily representing you: just join it and then vote to disband it.
> This is incorrect. Voluntary recognition, which is what this article is about, means that an election is not done. Wikimedia Foundation is asking for an election to ensure everyone actually wants this.
Misinformation.
Voluntary recognition just means that there isn't a 120 hard fight against union elections to decide if there CAN BE a union.
Dark Horse comics just voluntarily acknowledged their union. After that is union elections, to decide who the union elected is.
> I'm not sure what this whole thing is even about
The choice to voluntarily recognize the union would remove an obstacle for its creation. Deciding not to, in that context, can be seen as choosing to leave the obstacle in place. That, in turn, can be seen as intended to prevent the union from forming. The union is primarily a means of increasing bargaining power for its members. Therefore, this decision by WMF can be seen as intentionally weakening their employees' bargaining power.
Energy drink company slyly changed energy drink policy! Hell, I figured the wall on the White House would be a ~~Brando~~ Red Bull logo, but even in Idiocracy, that president took advice from real experts.
Flock, and anybody who funds them are the real domestic terrorists. Anybody who destroys these devices are patriots in my book.
And if I ever serve for jury duty over a case like that, they didn't do it.
reply